The West has a 15-month opportunity for a new nuclear deal with Iran that precludes an Iranian Bomb
Bulletin, By Seyed Hossein Mousavian | June 11, 2024
The Board of Governors of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) voted last week to censure Iran for failing to cooperate fully in the inspection regime set up under the 2015 nuclear deal to make Iran’s program more transparent and to set limits that would prevent redirection of nuclear material to make weapons. But the deal has failed for many reasons, not just Iran’s interference with IAEA inspectors.
Censure resolutions by the IAEA board are not legally binding but send a strong political and diplomatic message. The representative of Iran’s mission to the United Nations stated, “The decision of the Western countries was hasty and unwise, and it will undoubtedly have a detrimental impact on the process of diplomatic engagement and constructive cooperation.” Today, Iran may be only weeks away from having material for several nuclear weapons. The new President and cabinet of Iran will be determined within the next two months.
The United States and Europe should try to negotiate a new nuclear deal with Iran’s new administration.
At the IAEA board meeting, China, Iran, and Russia issued a joint statement blaming the US for its “unlawful and unilateral withdrawal” from the 2015 Iran nuclear deal (official known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, or JCPOA) and the imposition of “unilateral and illegal sanctions” against Iran. The three countries wrote that “[s]hould the full implementation of the JCPOA be in place today, it would have alleviated the overwhelming majority of existing questions regarding Iran’s peaceful nuclear program on a mutually accepted basis. The IAEA Secretariat too would have had broader verification and monitoring means.”
The three countries confirmed their readiness to restore the agreement based on the text of a draft agreement initially circulated in August 2022 by European Union foreign policy chief Josep Borrell and blamed the United States and the European signatories to the 2015 deal for blocking the draft for “the sake of their own political considerations”.
The nuclear crisis with Iran began in 2003 when the world became aware that Iran was building a uranium enrichment plant. But the divergence between Iran and the West on nuclear issues started after the 1979 revolution in Iran. Now, 45 years later, a last chance is still open for a positive resolution……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
The global powers still have an opportunity to engage Iran in a “New Nuclear Deal”: lifting nuclear sanctions in exchange for Iran’s full and permanent commitment to implementing comprehensive transparency measures in the JCPOA, which would grant the agency full visibility into Iran’s nuclear activities. It is the best option for staving off the Iranian Bomb. https://thebulletin.org/2024/06/the-west-has-a-15-month-opportunity-for-a-new-nuclear-deal-with-iran-that-precludes-an-iranian-bomb/
A majority of Iranians now favor possessing nuclear weapons. Their leaders take note.
Bulletin, By Peyman Asadzade | June 13, 2024
Iran is currently in a state of nuclear latency; it possesses the necessary materials to develop nuclear weapons should it decide to proceed. However, Iranian leaders have consistently stated that the country has no such intentions. Historically, public opinion polls since the mid-2000s have consistently demonstrated that while Iranians favored a peaceful nuclear program, a majority of them opposed developing nuclear weapons.
A recent survey, however, suggests that Iranian citizens are growing more receptive to nuclear weapons.
The survey, conducted between February 20 and May 26, was designed and carried out by the author in collaboration with the Toronto-based company, IranPoll. It used an online panel of 2,280 Iranian citizens that closely reflects the demographic structure of the national population, with targeted quotas across region, age, income, and gender.
The survey included two questions about Iran’s nuclear program. First, to what extent participants agreed or disagreed with the statement that “Iran should be able to use nuclear energy for peaceful purposes,” to which they were provided with four options: “strongly agree,” “somewhat agree,” “somewhat disagree,” and “strongly disagree.” An overwhelming majority of respondents (92 percent) either strongly or somewhat agreed with the statement, aligning with previous surveys about support for Iran’s civilian nuclear program—87 percent agreed with this statement in a 2011 survey, and a similar number (90 percent) agreed in 2020.
Respondents were then asked to what extent they agreed or disagreed with the statement that “Iran should possess nuclear weapons” and were given the same response options. Over 69 percent of them responded they support Iran pursuing nuclear weapons. This marks a departure from earlier opinion polls in which most Iranians consistently rejected the weaponization of the country’s nuclear program. It also stands in stark contrast to the stance of Iran’s elite, including the Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei’s fatwa (a legal ruling on a point of Islamic law) against the development and use of nuclear weapons……………………………………………….. https://thebulletin.org/2024/06/a-majority-of-iranians-now-favor-possessing-nuclear-weapons-their-leaders-take-note/
Nuclear watchdog votes to censure Iran for non-cooperation with inspectors
Clash between Iran and west over nuclear programme looms as US drops objections and joins European states condemning Tehran
Patrick Wintour, 6 June 24, https://www.theguardian.com/world/article/2024/jun/05/iaea-un-nuclear-watchdog-iran-vote
A fresh confrontation between Tehran and the west is looming over Iran’s nuclear programme after the board of the UN nuclear watchdog voted heavily to censure the country for its repeated failure to cooperate with UN nuclear inspectors.
The vote by the IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) members was passed with 20 represented countries in favour, two against, and 12 abstentions. The two countries to vote against were Russia and China.
It came after the US dropped its objections to the censure and joined the European countries condemning Iran’s failure to cooperate for years. The Biden administration had been reluctant to take the step, wishing not to open up another conflict with Iran in the Middle East, but the Europeans insisted the integrity of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty was at stake.
In backing the motion, the US called for a longer-term strategy to be developed towards Iran’s nuclear programme, especially since many of the restrictions placed on Iran in the original 2015 nuclear deal will be lifted next year. The last censure motion against Iran 19 months ago led to Iran announcing that it was going to enrich uranium to 60% purity – close to weapons grade – at its Fordow fuel enrichment plant.
Iran signed a nuclear deal in 2015, the joint comprehensive plan of action (JCPoA) that saw western economic sanctions lifted in return for strong controls over its civil nuclear programme. But the country has gradually reduced inspectors’ access to its nuclear sites and also vastly increased its stock of highly enriched uranium in breach of the limits set. It says it did so in response to Donald Trump unilaterally pulling the US out of the agreement in 2018, a move that is widely seen to have undercut advocates of western engagement inside Iran.
Iran says a fatwa (Islamic edict or legal decree) forbids possession of nuclear weapons, and in recent days it has disowned remarks made by some senior politicians arguing Iran should develop a bomb.
In a joint statement to the IAEA board, the UK, France and Germany – the three European signatories to the agreement – said: “Iran now possesses 30 times the JCPoA limit of enriched uranium and its stockpile of high enriched uranium up to 60% has continued to grow significantly. Iran now has the approximate amount of nuclear material from which the possibility of manufacturing a nuclear explosive device cannot be excluded.”
It added that the IAEA had “lost continuity of knowledge in relation to the production and inventory of centrifuges, rotors and bellows, heavy water and uranium ore concentrate”.
The IAEA director general, Rafael Grossi, had visited Iran before the quarterly board meeting in a bid to negotiate improved access, but the death of the Iranian president, Ebrahim Raisi, led to the discussions freezing.
In a joint statement issued before the vote, China, Iran and Russia called for fresh talks to revive the nuclear deal, saying it “was time for the western countries to show their political will, to refrain from the endless cycle of escalation that has been going on for almost the last two years. Passing of the resolution was a mistake that will only lead to confrontation.”
The Israeli foreign minister, Israel Katz, hailed the IAEA decision, saying: “This is the first resolution in 19 months on Iranian violations, paving the way for further actions against Iran’s nuclear activities … The free world must stop Iran now – before it’s too late.”
Iran’s specific countermeasures may be delayed by the country’s presidential election on 28 June, since candidates have different views on the wisdom of signing the deal in the first place.
In a joint statement after the passage of the resolution, France, Germany and the UK said: “The IAEA board will not sit idly by when Iran challenges the foundations of the non-proliferation system and undermines the credibility of the international safeguards regime.
“Iran must cooperate with the agency and provide technically credible explanations which satisfy the agency’s questions.
“This resolution supports the agency to pursue its dialogue with Iran to clarify all outstanding safeguards issues, while setting the stage for further steps to hold Iran to account if it fails to make concrete progress.”
They added it was still open to Iran to cooperate.
Iran’s Near Bomb-Grade Uranium Stock Grows Ahead of Election
International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors verified on Monday that
Iran’s stockpile of highly enriched uranium rose 17% over the last three
months, according to a nine-page, restricted report circulated among
diplomats and seen by Bloomberg. That’s enough uranium to fuel several
warheads, should Iran make a political decision to pursue weapons.
Bloomberg 27th May 2024
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/iran-near-bomb-grade-uranium-154724858.html
Iran appoints nuclear negotiator Ali Bagheri as interim foreign minister
First Post FP Staff • May 20, 2024
Following the horrific helicopter crash that killed Iran’s Foreign Minister and President, Ali Bagheri, the country’s seasoned nuclear negotiator, was named acting Foreign Minister on Monday.
Hossein Amir-Abdollahian, the late foreign minister, had Bagheri, 56, as his deputy. He is well-known for his strong connections to Iran’s ultraconservatives and his membership in the inner circle of Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.
Bagheri was known for his composed manner throughout his tenure, even though he took strong positions, especially when it came to denouncing intervention from the West.
Bagheri is well-versed in Iran’s nuclear dossier, a divisive topic that has soured relations between Tehran and major international players, notably Israel. He became a prominent opponent of the 2015 nuclear agreement, charging that Iran’s interests were compromised by the previous government…………………………………………….
With nuclear talks at a stalemate due to major differences, especially with the United States, Baghari’s nomination as interim foreign minister comes at a difficult moment. https://www.firstpost.com/world/iran-appoints-nuclear-negotiator-ali-bagheri-as-interim-foreign-minister-13772964.html
Iran open to ‘serious dialogue’, says UN nuclear chief
Fraught relations with Tehran, which faces sanctions over its atomic programme, appear to be easing
Andrew England in London, Ft.com 15 May 24
Iran has shown a willingness to engage in “serious dialogue” with the UN’s nuclear watchdog for the first time in more than a year, according to the agency’s head, in a sign Tehran is seeking to ease tensions with the US. Rafael Grossi, director-general of the International Atomic Energy Agency, told the Financial Times that Tehran and the watchdog, which have endured fraught relations for months, could be entering a “different phase” after he held talks in Iran. Tehran appears willing to discuss “concrete” issues, he said. The apparent shift in tone was prompted by an invitation from Iran’s nuclear chief Mohammad Eslami for Grossi to attend talks in the Islamic republic. The call came in mid-April at a time of heightened tensions between Iran, Israel and the US.
Around that time, Iranian officials issued veiled threats that Tehran could change policy and seek to weaponise its expansive nuclear programme. But after meeting Eslami and other senior officials last week on his first trip to Iran since March 2023, Grossi said he sensed an opportunity to resolve some points of contention, including improving the IAEA’s ability to monitor the republic’s nuclear activities. “I see in them a recognition that it is better to have some engagement than to continue on a completely divergent course, leading to more escalation and perhaps even more danger, including war,” Grossi said. “It’s very important because we reconnected after many months of talking past each other.
He added that Washington and Tehran also continued to keep open a “bilateral channel”. The FT revealed that senior US and Iranian officials held secret indirect talks in Oman in January as both sides sought to prevent the Israel-Hamas war from exploding into a full-blown regional conflict………………………
Grossi said Iran had not altered the scale or pace of its nuclear activity since Hamas’s October 7 attack and Israel’s retaliatory offensive in Gaza sparked hostilities across the Middle East. He added that there was “no evidence to suggest that Iran has moved, or is moving, or is planning to move, to a weapons programme”. Iran has been enriching uranium up to 60 per cent purity, close to weapons grade, for more than two years. It is part of Tehran’s response to former US President Donald Trump’s decision to unilaterally abandon the 2015 nuclear accord Tehran signed with world powers………………………………………………. more https://www.ft.com/content/d5e07404-2fed-4f60-ba11-59e6734665c2
US Says It Won’t Let Iran Build Nuclear Bomb
Iran International Newsroom, 14 May 24 https://www.iranintl.com/en/202405131207
The US will not allow Iran to build a nuclear bomb, the State Department said on Monday, one day after a senior Iranian official said Tehran would have no option but to change its nuclear doctrine in the face of Israel’s threats.
“[President] Biden and [US Secretary of State Antony] Blinken will not allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon,” State Department deputy spokesperson Vedant Patel said in a press briefing.
He made the remarks in reaction to Sunday comments by Kamal Kharrazi, a senior advisor to Iran’s ruler Ali Khamenei, that the Islamic Republic would be left with no option but to alter its nuclear doctrine if Israel threatened its nuclear facilities or its existence.
“We continue to assess, though, that Iran is not taking any key activities that would be necessary to produce a testable nuclear device,” Patel told Iran International correspondent Samira Gharaei.
Kharazi said on Sunday that Iran does “not possess nuclear weapons, and there is a fatwa from the leader regarding this matter. But what should you do if the enemy threatens you? You will inevitably have to make changes to your doctrine.”
Asked if these comments were a concern for the United States, Patel said, “We don’t believe that the Supreme Leader has yet made a decision to resume the (nuclear) weaponization program that we judge Iran suspended or stopped at the end of 2003.”
“We continue to assess, though, that Iran is not taking any key activities that would be necessary to produce a testable nuclear device,” Patel told Iran International correspondent Samira Gharaei.
Kharazi said on Sunday that Iran does “not possess nuclear weapons, and there is a fatwa from the leader regarding this matter. But what should you do if the enemy threatens you? You will inevitably have to make changes to your doctrine.”
Asked if these comments were a concern for the United States, Patel said, “We don’t believe that the Supreme Leader has yet made a decision to resume the (nuclear) weaponization program that we judge Iran suspended or stopped at the end of 2003.”
When asked about the Biden administration’s strategy toward a “nuclear threshold state” like Iran in the absence of ongoing negotiations, Patel told Iran International, “We have ways of communicating with Iran when it’s in our interest, I’m not going to comment on that.”
In a Monday press conference in Tehran, Iran’s foreign ministry spokesman suggested that Kharrazi’s remarks were not the official position of the Islamic Republic, and that Tehran’s nuclear doctrine has not changed.
“Iran’s official position on Weapons of Mass Destruction has been repeatedly declared by high-ranking Iranian officials, and there has been no change in Iran’s nuclear doctrine,” Nasser Kanaani told reporters in a briefing held on the sidelines of Tehran International Book Fair, citing a fatwa by Ali Khamenei on the prohibition of the production and use of nuclear weapons as the basis for Iran’s position.
However, the fatwa Iranian officials refer to is not an irrevocable principle. Islamic fatwas can change or be reversed at a moment’s notice, experts have pointed out. Also, the alleged Khamenei fatwa is not actually a religious order, it is part of a statement he submitted to an international conference more than a decade ago.
Khamenei may invoke the principle of expediency to overrule his “anti-Nuclear” fatwa. The principle of expediency, as decreed by the founder of the Islamic Republic Ayatollah Khomeini in January 1988, stipulates that the Supreme Leader may even violate the fundamental tenets of the Islamic faith in order to preserve “the Islamic Regime” as the preservation of the Islamic Regime supersedes all else.
Kharrazi on Sunday also raised the issue of Israel’s alleged nuclear arsenal and called for the Jewish state’s nuclear disarmament. “If Israel threatens other counties, they cannot remain silent,” he retorted.
Last week, Kharrazi had stated, “If they dare to strike Iran’s nuclear facilities, our level of deterrence will change. We have experienced deterrence at the conventional level so far. If they intend to strike Iran’s nuclear capabilities, naturally, it could lead to a change in Iran’s nuclear doctrine.”
In recent weeks, Iran has evoked the option of using the nuclear option as a deterrent against the possibility of an Israeli strike against its atomic facilities, amid a new reality in the Middle East after the October 7 Hamas attack.
On Friday, Iranian lawmaker Ahmad Bakhshayesh Ardestani claimed Iran might already possess a nuclear weapon.
He conveyed to the Rouydad 24 website his belief that Iran’s decision to risk attacking Israel in April stemmed from its possession of nuclear weapons.
Ali-Akbar Salehi, who was foreign minister more than a decade ago and is still a key foreign policy voice in the Iranian government, also said last month that Iran has everything it needed to build a nuclear bomb, as tensions rose with Israel amid the Gaza war.
In a televised interview in April, Salehi, was asked if Iran has achieved the capability of developing a nuclear bomb. Avoiding a direct answer he stated, “We have [crossed] all the thresholds of nuclear science and technology.”
Salehi’s statement was preceded by a declaration from a Revolutionary Guard general. In the midst of tensions between the Islamic Republic and Israel, Ahmad Haghtalab, the IRGC commander of the Guard for the Protection and Security of Nuclear Facilities, announced on April 19 that if Israel intends to “use the threat of attacking our nuclear facilities as a tool to pressure Iran, a revision of the nuclear doctrine and policies of the Islamic Republic of Iran and a shift from previously stated considerations is conceivable and likely.”
Since early 2021, when the Biden administration opted for negotiations to restore the Obama-era JCPOA agreement, Iran has vastly expanded its uranium enrichment efforts and is now believed to have amassed enough fissile material for 3-5 nuclear warheads.
Inside story: Will Iran’s supreme leader revise his ‘nuclear fatwa’?
https://amwaj.media/article/inside-story-will-iran-s-supreme-leader-revise-his-nuclear-fatwa 5 May 24
The direct confrontation between Iran and Israel has sparked speculation about a potential shift in the Islamic Republic’s nuclear policies under the leadership of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.
Following Iran’s Apr. 14 military action against Israel in response to the Apr. 1 bombing of the Iranian consulate in Damascus, a senior commander of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) explicitly suggested the possibility of a revision to Tehran’s objection to atomic weapons. The suggestion may only be a part of the war of words between Iran and Israel. However, the fact that such discourse is rapidly becoming mainstream in Iran raises questions of what may lie ahead—including whether a shift may take place under Khamenei, who has long opposed atomic weapons on a religious basis.
Rapidly changing discourse
Amid media speculations of a major Israeli attack in response to Iran’s Apr. 14 drone and missile strike on sites inside Israel, Gen. Ahmad Haqtalab—the commander of the Protection and Security Corps of Nuclear Centers—on Apr. 18 stated, “If the Zionist regime wants to use the threat of attacking our country’s nuclear centers as a tool to pressure Iran, it is possible to review the nuclear doctrine and policies of the Islamic Republic of Iran and deviate from the previous considerations.”
The warning was rare, and even as tensions eased between Tehran and Tel Aviv, Iranian officials continued to underscore the significance of the matter. Four days after Haqtalab’s intervention, former IRGC commander and current MP Javad Karimi Qoddousi tweeted, “If permission is issued, there will be [only a] week before the first [nuclear] test.” Qoddousi separately posited that the same amount of time was needed to test missiles with an increased range of 12,000 km (7,456 miles).
However, Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Nasser Kanani promptly interjected, dismissing the notion of any alteration to the country’s nuclear doctrine. Meanwhile, government-run Iran daily slammed Qoddousi, characterizing his statements as “untrue” and possibly being exploited by “enemies” to pursue further sanctions and fear mongering against Iran. Several other outlets, including conservative-run media, notably echoed such criticisms.
Yet, despite the blowback, Qoddousi went ahead and posted a video on Apr. 25 in which he said that Iran needs only half a day to produce the 90%-enriched uranium necessary to build nuclear bombs.
Khamenei and the ‘nuclear fatwa’
In Shiite Islam, a fatwa is a religious edict issued by a high-ranking Islamic jurist on the basis of interpretation of Islamic law. To followers of the jurist in question, fatwas are binding and the primary point of reference for everything from major life decisions to day-to-day matters. Fatwas can also be a part of state policies.
Ayatollah Khamenei has on multiple occasions over the past two decades reiterated his objection to the development, stockpiling, and usage of nuclear weapons as haram or religiously impermissible. Among believers, violating what is deemed haram would have serious consequences both in this life and the hereafter. In 2010, the supreme leader reiterated his objection to weapons of mass destruction in a message to an international conference on nuclear disarmament, stating they “pose a serious threat to humanity” and that “everyone must make efforts to secure humanity against this great calamity.”
Critics of what became known as the nuclear fatwa have over the years raised a variety of objections, from the modality of Khamenei’s religious edict to the manner in which it has been presented. Some even question whether the ruling really exists. What is indisputable, however, is that the religious edict has previously averted conflict by aiding diplomacy.
For instance, in connection with the 2013-15 nuclear negotiations that led to the signing of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) between Iran and world powers—which saw Tehran agree to restrictions on its atomic program in exchange for sanctions relief—there were suggestions that the Islamic Republic should codify the fatwa.
Amid the nuclear negotiations with Iran, then-US secretary of state John Kerry in 2014 stated, “We take [Khamenei’s fatwa] very seriously….a fatwa issued by a cleric is an extremely powerful statement about intent. Our need is to codify it.” In another interview the same year, Kerry asserted that “the requirement here is to translate the fatwa into a legally binding, globally recognized, international understanding…that goes beyond an article of faith within a religious belief.”
Only days after the signing of the JCPOA in 2015, Khamenei said, “The Americans say they stopped Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon. They know it is not true. We had a fatwa, declaring nuclear weapons to be religiously forbidden under Islamic law. It had nothing to do with the nuclear talks.”
Will Khamenei change his fatwa?
Khamenei is not the first Iranian Islamic jurist to issue a fateful religious edict on a highly politicized matter. Back in 1891, Mirza Mohammad Shirazi (1815-95), a leading Shiite religious authority at the time, issued a hokm or verdict against the usage of tobacco in what became known as the Tobacco Protest. The move came in protest against a concession granted by the Qajar monarch Naser Al-Din (1848-98) to the British Empire, granting control over the growth, sale, and export of tobacco to an Englishman. The hokm issued by Shirazi ultimately led to the repeal of the concession.
Neither a fatwa nor a hokm is set in stone and can be revised. The main distinction between the two types of rulings is that a hokm tends to have more conditions and requirements attached to it. Moreover, while a fatwa must be followed by the followers of the Islamic jurist who issued it, a hokm must be followed by all believers—including Shiites who are not followers of the jurist in question.
Explaining the intricacies of a hokm, a cleric and professor of Islamic law (fiqh) at the Qom Seminary told Amwaj.media, “There are primary hokm and secondary hokm. The former is like the necessity of the daily prayer that is mentioned in the Quran and the hadiths [traditions], or the prohibition on consuming alcohol. The secondary hokm is based on expediency and necessity that leads to the first ruling being changed. For example, if alcohol helps someone stay alive, then it is not haram [religiously impermissible] for him or her [to make use of it].” He added, “A fatwa can be changed too.”
IAEA’s top nuclear salesman-cum-watchdog to visit Iran
The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has confirmed that its Director-General, Rafael Grossi, will travel to Iran on May 6 to engage with high-ranking officials.
He will attend the International Conference on Nuclear Science and Technology during the visit, taking place in Isfahan, just months after officials in Iran claimed to be within reach of nuclear weapons. Grossi just days ago also claimed Iran was “weeks not months” from a nuclear weapon.
Im February Grossi admitted a “drifting apart” in relations between the agency and an increasingly defiant Iran.
Grossi noted in the same month that although the rate of uranium enrichment in Iran had decreased slightly since the previous year’s end, Iran continued to enrich uranium at a significant rate of approximately 7 kg per month to 60 percent purity, near weapons grade.
Under the terms of a 2015 agreement with world powers, Iran was only permitted to enrich uranium up to 3.67 percent.
However, after former President Donald Trump withdrew the United States from the agreement in 2018 and reinstated sanctions, Iran exceeded the limits. As a result, the IAEA has stated that the 2015 nuclear deal has “all but disintegrated”.
Why Iran may accelerate its nuclear program, and Israel may be tempted to attack it
Bulletin, By Darya Dolzikova, Matthew Savill | April 26, 2024
On April 19, Israel carried out a strike deep inside Iranian territory, near the city of Isfahan. The attack was apparently in retaliation for a major Iranian drone and missile attack on Israel a few days earlier. This exchange between the two countries—which have historically avoided directly targeting each other’s territories—has raised fears of a potentially serious military escalation in the region.
Israel’s strike was carried out against an Iranian military site located in close proximity to the Isfahan Nuclear Technology Center, which hosts nuclear research reactors, a uranium conversion plant, and a fuel production plant, among other facilities. Although the attack did not target Iran’s nuclear facilities directly, earlier reports suggested that Israel was considering such attacks. The Iranian leadership has, in turn, threatened to reconsider its nuclear policy and to advance its program should nuclear sites be attacked.
These events highlight the threat from regional escalation dynamics posed by Iran’s near-threshold nuclear capability, which grants Iran the perception of a certain degree of deterrence—at least against direct US retaliation—while also serving as an understandably tempting target for Israeli attack. As tensions between Israel and Iran have moved away from their traditional proxy nature and manifested as direct strikes against each other’s territories, the urgency of finding a timely and non-military solution to the Iranian nuclear issue has increased.
A tempting target. While the current assessment is that Iran does not possess nuclear weapons, the Islamic Republic maintains a very advanced nuclear program, allowing it to develop a nuclear weapons capability relatively rapidly, should it decide to do so. Iran’s “near-threshold” capability did not deter Israel from undertaking its recent attack. But Iran’s nuclear program is a tempting target for an attack that could have potentially destabilizing ramification: The program is advanced enough to pose a credible risk of rapid weaponization and at a stage when it could still be significantly degraded, albeit at an extremely high cost.
Iran views its nuclear program as a deterrent against direct US strikes on or invasion of its territory, acting as an insurance policy of sorts against invasion following erroneous Western accusations over its nuclear program, ala Iraq in 2003. That’s to say, during an attempted invasion, Iran could quickly produce nuclear weapons……………………………
Israel sees the Iranian nuclear program as an existential threat and has long sought its elimination. For this reason, reports that Israel might have been preparing to target Iranian nuclear sites as retaliation for Iran’s strikes against its territory came as little surprise……………………………………………………………………….
A range of bad options. The possibility of Iranian weaponization and Israeli attacks on Iran’s nuclear sites could lead to a serious escalation spiral and, potentially, a wider military conflict in the region……………………………………………………………
Following past instances of Israeli sabotage against the Iranian nuclear program, Tehran has doubled down—rebuilding damaged sites, hardening facilities, and ramping up its nuclear activity. The same is likely to be true should Iranian facilities be targeted directly this time, only to a greater degree. The shift from a proxy conflict between Iran and Israel to a direct engagement will only increase the value Iran places on its nuclear program as a deterrent against further direct attack on its territory and US military intervention. Should Iran assess that its regional proxies and its missile and drone capabilities have been insufficient to deter Israel from conducting direct strikes against its strategically significant nuclear program, Tehran may see the actual weaponization of its nuclear program as the only option left that can guarantee the security of the Iranian regime……………………………………………………………………………………………………………. more https://thebulletin.org/2024/04/why-iran-may-accelerate-its-nuclear-program-and-israel-may-be-tempted-to-attack-it/?utm_source=Newsletter&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=MondayNewsletter04292024&utm_content=NuclearRisk_IranNuclearProgramIsrael_04262024
Iran says nuclear weapons have no place in its nuclear doctrine
By Reuters, April 22, 2024,
Reporting by Dubai Newsroom; Editing by Alex Richardson, William Maclean, https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/iran-says-nuclear-weapons-have-no-place-its-nuclear-doctrine-2024-04-22/
DUBAI, April 22 (Reuters) – Nuclear weapons have no place in Iran’s nuclear doctrine, the country’s foreign ministry said on Monday, days after a Revolutionary Guards commander warned that Tehran might change its nuclear policy if pressured by Israeli threats.
“Iran has repeatedly said its nuclear programme only serves peaceful purposes. Nuclear weapons have no place in our nuclear doctrine,” ministry spokesperson Nasser Kanaani said during a press conference in Tehran.
Following a spike in tensions with Israel, the Guards commander in charge of nuclear security Ahmad Haghtalab said last week that Israeli threats could push Tehran to “review its nuclear doctrine and deviate from its previous considerations.”
Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who has the last say on Tehran’s nuclear programme, banned the development of nuclear weapons in a fatwa, or religious decree, in the early 2000s.
Under UN Charter, Iran’s Attack Was a Legal Response to Israel’s Illegal Attack
Iran’s attack on Israel was lawful self-defense carried out in compliance with international humanitarian law.
On April 13, Iran’s aircraft struck two air bases in the Negev desert, where the April 1 attack on Iran’s consulate had been launched. “Iran retaliated against those targets in Israel directly related to the Israeli attack on Iran,”
By Marjorie Cohn , TRUTHOUT, April 18, 2024
On April 1, Israel mounted an unprovoked military attack on a building that was part of the Iranian Embassy complex in Damascus, Syria, killing seven of Iran’s senior military advisers and five additional people. The victims included Gen. Mohamad Reza Zahedi, head of Iran’s covert military operations in Lebanon and Syria, and two other senior generals.
Although Israel’s attack violated the United Nations Charter, the UN Security Council refused to condemn it because the United States, the U.K. and France exercised their vetoes on April 4.
Iran considered this attack on its consulate “an act of war,” Trita Parsi wrote at Foreign Policy.
On April 11, the Permanent Mission of the Islamic Republic of Iran to the United Nations stated: “Had the UN Security Council condemned the Zionist regime’s reprehensible act of aggression on our diplomatic premises in Damascus and subsequently brought to justice its perpetrators, the imperative for Iran to punish this rogue regime might have been obviated.”
Then, on April 13, in response to Israel’s attack, Iran fired more than 300 drones and missiles at the Israeli air base from which the April 1 attacks had emanated. Only two of them landed inside Israel and no one was killed; a Bedouin girl was injured. The U.S., U.K., France, Jordan and Israel intercepted the remaining Iranian missiles and drones. A senior U.S. military official said “there’s no significant damage within Israel itself.”
The Iranian mission to the UN wrote in an April 13 letter to the UN secretary-general that Iran’s action was conducted “in the exercise of Iran’s inherent right to self-defense” under Article 51 of the UN Charter “and in response to the Israeli recurring military aggressions, particularly its armed attack” on April 1 “against Iranian diplomatic premises, in the defiance of Article 2(4) of the Charter of the United Nations.”
The April 1 attack was not the first time Israel had attacked key Iranian personnel………………………………………………………………………….
Iran made clear that it seeks to avoid further escalation that could spark a widespread regional war. An April 13 social media post from Iran’s permanent mission to the UN stated, “The matter can be deemed concluded. However, should the Israeli regime make another mistake, Iran’s response will be considerably more severe. It is a conflict between Iran and the rogue Israeli regime, from which the U.S. MUST STAY AWAY!”
At a Security Council meeting on April 14, Iran’s UN Ambassador Saeid Iravani defended the lawfulness of the missile and drone attack on Israel. He noted the hypocrisy of the U.S. and its allies that claim Israel is acting in self-defense as it conducts its genocide of the Palestinian people:………………………………………..
Israel’s Attack on Iranian Consulate Violated the UN Charter and Vienna Conventions
Iran’s April 13 attack on Israel was a lawful exercise of self-defense in response to Israel’s unlawful April 1 attack on the Iranian consulate. The Israeli attack was an illegal act of aggression.
Article 2 (4) of the UN Charter states, “All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.”
An act of aggression is inconsistent with the purposes of the UN. Article 39 of the Charter says, “The Security Council shall determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression.”
An “‘act of aggression’ means the use of armed force by a State against the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of another State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Charter of the United Nations,” under the Rome Statute for the International Criminal Court. Aggression includes “the invasion or attack by the armed forces of a State of the territory of another State.”
Moreover, “Consular premises shall be inviolable,” according to Article 31 of the 1963 Vienna Convention on Consular Relations. Article 1 defines consular premises as “the buildings or parts of buildings and the land ancillary thereto, irrespective of ownership, used exclusively for the purposes of the consular post.”
The 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations likewise provides in Article 22.1 that, “The premises of the mission shall be inviolable. The agents of the receiving State may not enter them, except with the consent of the head of the mission.”
During Israel’s bombing of Iran’s consulate in Syria, it targeted and killed very senior Iranian officials. The attack constituted an act of aggression, which triggered Iran’s right to self-defense.
Iran’s April 13 Attack on Israel Constituted Lawful Self-Defense
Article 51 states, “Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to maintain international peace and security.”
An armed attack includes not just an attack against the territory of a state, including its airspace and territorial sea, but also attacks directed against its armed forces or embassies abroad.
On April 13, Iran’s aircraft struck two air bases in the Negev desert, where the April 1 attack on Iran’s consulate had been launched. “Iran retaliated against those targets in Israel directly related to the Israeli attack on Iran,” former U.S. weapons inspector Scott Ritter wrote.
Nevertheless, the Security Council has failed to adopt a resolution condemning Israel’s attack on Iran’s consulate, as Iran pointed out in its April 13 letter to the UN secretary-general.
At an April 14 meeting of the Security Council, the Israeli representative declared that Iran is the number one global sponsor of terrorism and the world’s worst human rights violator. It is Israel, however, that has killed nearly 34,000 Palestinians — two-thirds of them women and children — during its campaign of genocide in Gaza that has now entered its seventh month.
Iran’s self-defense action was the natural outcome of Israel’s violations of international law — both on Syrian territory and elsewhere — the representative from the Syrian Arab Republic said at the April 14 council meeting. Israel is trying to cover up its genocide and military failures in Gaza, the Syrian representative added.
Iran’s Attack Satisfied the Principles of Proportionality, Distinction and Precautions……………………………………………………………….
Netanyahu Is Gunning for War With Iran
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu would like nothing better than to start a war with Iran. Netanyahu considers Iran an “existential threat” to Israel. He persuaded former President Donald Trump to pull out of the Iran nuclear deal, which was working to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons.
As the world waits for Israel’s response to the Iranian attack, President Joe Biden said the U.S. would not assist Israel in an offensive military action against Iran but it would give Israel defensive support if Iran attacks Israel. “But the distinction between offensive or defensive support becomes meaningless the second a war breaks out,” wrote Trita Parsi.
Today, the U.S. and U.K. imposed additional punishing sanctions on Iran. Unilateral coercive measures, levied without the imprimatur of the Security Council, are illegal and generally harm only the general population…………………………………………………………………………………………… more https://truthout.org/articles/under-un-charter-irans-attack-was-a-legal-response-to-israels-illegal-attack/
Israel: the road to Masada
historical Masada is a rationalization for a future Masada —another crazy sect – of Jewish true believers self-destructing—Zionists.
In 73 A.D., legend has it, 960 Jewish rebels under siege in the ancient desert fortress of Masada committed suicide rather than surrender to a Roman legion.
News Forensics JULIAN MACFARLANE, APR 16, 2024
The Iran attack story continues to unfold. Everybody has an opinion – but we still don’t actually know what really happened. As a result, some think the attack was a victory for Iran. Others, even those on the Left, think not. Finian Cunningham calls it “lame retaliation”.
The Iranians say they gave the American 72 hours’ notice.
Pepe Escobar says that the Iranians and Americans met in Oman and the Iranians told the Americans their attack would be on military bases only. And…
THE SHADOWPLAY So this is how it happened. Burns met an Iranian delegation in Oman. He was told the Israeli punishment was inevitable – and if the US got involved then all US bases will be attacked, and the Strait of Hormuz would be blocked. Burns said we do nothing if no civilians are harmed. The Iranians said it will be a military base or an embassy. The CIA said go ahead and do it.
The Americans of course deny this.
So, somebody’s lying.
Over the years the Iranians have shown a tendency to exaggerate – usually about military capability—but they do not usually lie directly.
The US however doesn’t just fib a bit – it likes really really big lies. For America, the truth is whatever is most convenient for its policies, knowing that the media will always propagate Official Doctrine, just as in the Middle Ages the Vatican could be sure it’s pronouncements would be heard in sermons all over Europe, and believers would take them to heart. Those who dissented could be burned at the stake. We don’t do that — we have Belmarsh prison.
As Putin says, the US is the Empire of Lies.
In this case, the Americans keep on changing their story.
At first, the American said there were 170 drones and 30 cruise missiles. They did not mention ballistic missiles.
Now, the number is 170 drones, 30 cruise missiles, and 100 ballistic missiles. T The media are talking up MIRVs and hypersonic weapons.
The US number now is the same as the IDF was claiming in the beginning. but it seems the number is going up.
The IDF insists that its ”David Sling” system intercepted 99% of 120 missiles breaching its airspace.
The Americans and Brits intercepted only drones apparently—47% of the drones— which means that about 80 entered Israeli airspace to add to the other hardware hurtling through Israeli skies.
Israelis say — or at least said — there were only two hits – with an unrealistically high percentage of interception. According to some Western analysts, however, the Iranians achieved a 6% success rate and 9 hits on Israeli targets— with both drones and missiles.
Israeli missile interceptors are impressive in the sky…………………………………………………………………………….
Given 72 hours advance warning, Western media speculate the Israelis should have been able to do a lot better, especially with US support.
Now we hear talk of MIRV missiles (multiple warheads) or hypersonic missiles which neither the Americans nor the Israelis would be able to intercept at all, much less 99%.
The Iranians may have, in fact, experimented with both kinds of sophisticated weaponry – but not in any quantity.
The fact that the Israelis were able to down so many “projectiles” – albeit at a cost of $3 billion suggests that the Iranians were, as I posited before, mostly using old stuff, demonstrating that even with that they could get through.
That said, while American sources are admitting nine hits, there may have been more as Andrei Martynov suggests.
So what happens if shit hits the fan? What if Finian Cunningham is right? What if the Israelis mistake the message and escalate?
The Iranians have promised a gloves off response of a magnitude perhaps 100 times greater.
The Russian Playbook
Netanyahu is Israel’s Zelensky. Israel is America’s Ukraine.
By contrast, Iran seems to be following the Russian playbook.
Their attack was classic Russian tactics. Drones, decoys air defense systems, followed by missiles of different types. Precision targeting. Avoidance of civilian casualties. Restraint
IF Israel mounts a major attack against Iran, it is likely to be vicious – just like Ukrainian attacks in Ukraine. Therefore, you can expect Iranians to apply other successful Russian strategies.
John Helmer has suggested Iran might adopt Russia’s current strategy of attacking critical infrastructure. That means Israel’s offshore oilfields and especially power stations – the electrical grid—which are highly vulnerable— and unlike in the Ukraine, localized……………………………….
Masada
Does history repeat itself? Of course it does.
Everyone thinks it doesn’t.
That’s because no one really knows – or wants to know – what happened in the first place—we mythologize and fictionalize events in the past to correspond to present day realities and needs.
Masada never happened as Israelis think it did – so they have learnt nothing. That thing about history —we don’t want to learn and when it repeats we don’t know what’s happening..
Masada? It wasn’t the Romans that “done it”.
It was a crazy sect of Jewish true believers who self-destructed.
That historical Masada is a rationalization for a future Masada —another crazy sect – of Jewish true believers self-destructing—Zionists.
Iran Israel: An audible sigh of relief in the Middle East
By Lyse Doucet,Chief international correspondent, 20 Apr 24, more https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-68861607
The latest round in the region’s most dangerous rivalry appears to be over, for now.
Israel still has not officially acknowledged that the attack in Iran in the early hours of Friday morning was its doing.
Meanwhile, Iran’s military and political leaders have downplayed, dismissed and even mocked that anything of consequence happened at all.
The accounts over what kind of weaponry was deployed on Friday and how much damage was caused are still conflicting and incomplete.
American officials speak of a missile strike, but Iranian officials say the attacks, in the central province of Isfahan and in northwest Tabriz, were caused by small exploding drones.
“The downed micro air vehicles caused no damage and no casualties,” Iran’s Foreign Minister Hossein Amir-Abdollahian insisted to the semi-official Tasnim News Agency.
But these simple quadcopters are Israel’s calling card – it has deployed them time and again in its years of covert operations inside Iran.
This time their main target was the storied central province of Isfahan, which is celebrated for its stunning Islamic heritage.
Of late, however, the province is more famous for the Natanz nuclear facility, the Isfahan Nuclear Technology Centre and a major air base, which was used during Iran’s 14 April attack on Israel.
It is also an industrial heartland housing factories which produce the drones and ballistic missiles that were fired by the hundreds in Israel’s direction last Sunday.
So a limited operation seems to have carried a powerful warning – that Israel has the intelligence and assets to strike at will at Iran’s beating heart.
It is a message so urgent that Israel made sure it was sent before, rather than after, the start of the Jewish Passover, as was widely predicted by Israel watchers.
US officials have also indicated that Israel targeted sites such as Iran’s air defence radar system, which protects Natanz. There is still no confirmed account of its success.
So this attack may also be just an opening salvo. But it was, for the moment, an unintended 85th birthday gift to Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.
Israel’s official silence gave Iran’s ultimate decision-maker vital political space. Tehran did not have to invoke its new rule that whenever its arch-enemy strikes, Iran will hit back hard, with the risk of sparking a perilous escalatory spiral.
Hardline President Ebrahim Raisi did not even mention these most recent events in his Friday speeches.
For the Islamic Republic, it is all about what it dubs Operation True Promise – its unprecedented onslaught against Israel in the dead of night last Sunday. He hailed what he called his country’s “steely will”.
Iran has prided itself for years on its “strategic patience”, its policy of playing a long game rather than retaliating immediately and directly to any provocations.
Now, it is invoking “strategic deterrence”. This new doctrine was triggered by the 1 April attack on its diplomatic compound in Damascus, which destroyed its consular annex and killed seven Revolutionary Guards, including its most senior commander in the region.
Iran’s supreme leader was under mounting pressure to draw a line as Israel ramped up its targets during the last six months of the grievous Gaza war.
No longer just striking Tehran’s assets, including arms caches, buildings, bases and supply routes on battle grounds like Syria and Lebanon, Israel was also assassinating top-ranking officials.
A decades-long hostility, which had previously played out in shadow wars and covert operations, erupted in open confrontation.
Whatever the specifics of this latest tit for tat, there is a more fundamental priority for both sides: deterrence – a more solid certainty that strikes on its own soil will not happen again. If they do, there is a cost to pay, and it will hurt.
For the moment there is an audible sigh of relief in the region, and in capitals far and wide.
Israel’s latest move, under anxious urging from its allies to limit its retaliation, will have eased this tension, for now. Everyone wants to stop a catastrophic all-out war. But no one will be in any doubt that any lull may not last.
The region is still on fire.
The Gaza war grinds on, causing a staggering number of Palestinian casualties.
Under pressure from its staunchest allies, Israel has facilitated the delivery of greater quantities of desperately needed aid, but the blighted territory still teeters on the brink of famine.
Israeli hostages have still not come home, and ceasefire talks are stalled. Israel still warns of battles to come in Hamas’s last stronghold in Rafah – what aid chiefs and world leaders say would be yet another untold humanitarian disaster.
Iran’s network of proxies across the region, what it calls an “Axis of Resistance” stretching from Hezbollah strongholds in Lebanon through Iran-aligned militias in Iraq and Syria, to the Houthis of Yemen, are at the ready, still attacking daily.
In the last few weeks, simultaneously everything and nothing has changed in the region’s darkest, most dangerous days.
I’ve seen Iran’s nuclear HQ – these are the risks if Israel tries to destroy it.
The fortified Natanz uranium enrichment facility is thought to
be a top target if Israel attacks Iran. The uranium enrichment plant in the
Iranian desert has long been a centre of geopolitical controversy.
“Don’t take any photos. The guards will be watching. If they see you holding a camera, they’ll probably shoot us.”
That was my guide’s strict instruction as our mini-bus slowly approached
the Natanz uranium enrichment plant in the heart of the Iranian desert,
during my trip to the country in 2014. Despite growing optimism back then
about international negotiations over Iran’s nuclear programme, security
for Iran’s biggest and most controversial nuclear facility remained as
tight as ever.
You might think it odd that a public road would run within a
few hundred metres of such a sensitive area. We were driving on Freeway 7
from the city of Esfahan to the ancient village of Abyaneh, and the
quickest route happened to pass by Natanz.
One thing I remember from that
journey is the sight of anti-aircraft guns pointing towards the sky. If
Israel attacks Iran in vengeance for its drone and missile assault at the
weekend – following Israel’s own strike on the Iranian consulate in
Damascus – then Natanz is likely to be among the top desired targets for
its jets.
Rafael Grossi, director general of the International Atomic
Energy Agency, revealed on Monday that the extreme Islamic regime in Tehran
closed its nuclear sites over the weekend because of “security
considerations”. Asked if he believed that Israel might attack the
facilities, the head of the UN watchdog replied: “We are always concerned
about this possibility.” Mr Grossi called for “extreme restraint”.
Natanz has long been central to Iran’s nuclear programme. It is where
centrifuges spin uranium gas at extremely high speed to separate a lighter
form – uranium-235- from a heavier variant. It is the uranium-235 isotope
that can be split to produce energy. Even if Israel succeeded in blowing up
Natanz, the Washington-based Arms Control Association has warned: “Tehran
may have already diverted certain materials, such as advanced centrifuges
used to enrich uranium, to covert sites.
” If the Israeli prime minister
Benjamin Netanyahu decides to strike Natanz, or any other site in Iran,
then it’s hard to know where this crisis might end – with worries about a
wider regional conflict or even World War Three suddenly seeming realistic.
iNews 17th April 2024
https://inews.co.uk/news/world/iran-nuclear-hq-israel-risks-3010773
1 This Month
5 January -Webinar-What is Trump’s Golden Dome?
REGISTER AT Massachusetts Peace Action Education
New book – https://www.amazon.com/dp/1923372157?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email
Now until to February 10, 2026 Radioactive waste storage in France: the debate is finally open! How to participate?
-
Archives
- December 2025 (358)
- November 2025 (359)
- October 2025 (377)
- September 2025 (258)
- August 2025 (319)
- July 2025 (230)
- June 2025 (348)
- May 2025 (261)
- April 2025 (305)
- March 2025 (319)
- February 2025 (234)
- January 2025 (250)
-
Categories
- 1
- 1 NUCLEAR ISSUES
- business and costs
- climate change
- culture and arts
- ENERGY
- environment
- health
- history
- indigenous issues
- Legal
- marketing of nuclear
- media
- opposition to nuclear
- PERSONAL STORIES
- politics
- politics international
- Religion and ethics
- safety
- secrets,lies and civil liberties
- spinbuster
- technology
- Uranium
- wastes
- weapons and war
- Women
- 2 WORLD
- ACTION
- AFRICA
- Atrocities
- AUSTRALIA
- Christina's notes
- Christina's themes
- culture and arts
- Events
- Fuk 2022
- Fuk 2023
- Fukushima 2017
- Fukushima 2018
- fukushima 2019
- Fukushima 2020
- Fukushima 2021
- general
- global warming
- Humour (God we need it)
- Nuclear
- RARE EARTHS
- Reference
- resources – print
- Resources -audiovicual
- Weekly Newsletter
- World
- World Nuclear
- YouTube
-
RSS
Entries RSS
Comments RSS
nuclear-news 